49
to the management sphere and how the scientifi c sphere takes up demands from
management are two crucial aspects to enable a sound governance process. A
particular focus in this study is the shift to an ecosystem-based approach to management and resolving uncertainty in the data.
• Different kinds of incomplete knowledge in science and management : The knowledge about a risk can be classifi ed in three distinct categories (cf. Sellke and Renn
2010 ): complexity , uncertainty and ambiguity . Complexity is the diffi culty of
establishing a cause–effect relationship, for example, due to intervening variables
or the multiplicity of variables included in the assessment . Complexity is, therefore, a cognitive confl ict, i.e. there is not enough knowledge on all infl uencing
variables and thus more knowledge has to be generated. Uncertainty often results
from unresolved complexity but is also an entity of its own. It suggests that we do
not know what we do not know. The lack of knowledge about unexpected and
unknown effects can be due to stochastic relationships, ignorance or system
boundaries. In the case of uncertainty, an evaluative confl ict is posed. The third
category, ambiguity , refers to the fact that risk assessment results can be accepted
by different stakeholders as being sound science and valid but can also be interpreted differently in terms of the hazardous effects the risk might have. Further,
normative, religious or other ethical considerations might overrun a technical risk
assessment, for example, if for some stakeholders, only one of the common three
pillars of sustainability is of value. Ambiguity thus stands for normative confl icts.
The effects of the different kinds of uncertainty in science and management and
how they are dealt with in Baltic fi sheries are addressed here.
• Communication with and amongst stakeholders : Previous research in different
risk-related areas has shown that misunderstanding with regard to the framing of
an issue often leads to a fl awed communication process later on (cf. Renn 2008 ).
Further, in risk governance processes, specifi c forms of communication are
appropriate at a given time; thus, not all communication (and participation )
efforts are suitable to all occasions. How actors communicate with each other,
however, is of broader and more fundamental importance to the whole governance process. Besides formal communication structures between one institution
and another, informal communication channels between stakeholders are of
equal importance. The changing role of stakeholders’ involvement in Baltic Sea
fi sheries governance is therefore discussed under this heading.
• Improvement opportunities for dealing with fi shing : Which measures, structures
and changes in the management and/or advice system are of importance to the
interviewee from his/her specifi c angle? What recommendations could be developed from the views articulated? From the specifi c point of view of the respective interviewee, certain insights might be found that cannot be seen from an
outsider’s perspective. The research process is, therefore, open to ascertaining
the interviewees’ thoughts and experiences with regard to improving
management.
The six aspects that we focus on are partly overlapping and are dealt with in this
paper in the following manner. First we describe the governance structures of EU
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
to the management sphere and how the scientifi c sphere takes up demands from
management are two crucial aspects to enable a sound governance process. A
particular focus in this study is the shift to an ecosystem-based approach to management and resolving uncertainty in the data.
• Different kinds of incomplete knowledge in science and management : The knowledge about a risk can be classifi ed in three distinct categories (cf. Sellke and Renn
2010 ): complexity , uncertainty and ambiguity . Complexity is the diffi culty of
establishing a cause–effect relationship, for example, due to intervening variables
or the multiplicity of variables included in the assessment . Complexity is, therefore, a cognitive confl ict, i.e. there is not enough knowledge on all infl uencing
variables and thus more knowledge has to be generated. Uncertainty often results
from unresolved complexity but is also an entity of its own. It suggests that we do
not know what we do not know. The lack of knowledge about unexpected and
unknown effects can be due to stochastic relationships, ignorance or system
boundaries. In the case of uncertainty, an evaluative confl ict is posed. The third
category, ambiguity , refers to the fact that risk assessment results can be accepted
by different stakeholders as being sound science and valid but can also be interpreted differently in terms of the hazardous effects the risk might have. Further,
normative, religious or other ethical considerations might overrun a technical risk
assessment, for example, if for some stakeholders, only one of the common three
pillars of sustainability is of value. Ambiguity thus stands for normative confl icts.
The effects of the different kinds of uncertainty in science and management and
how they are dealt with in Baltic fi sheries are addressed here.
• Communication with and amongst stakeholders : Previous research in different
risk-related areas has shown that misunderstanding with regard to the framing of
an issue often leads to a fl awed communication process later on (cf. Renn 2008 ).
Further, in risk governance processes, specifi c forms of communication are
appropriate at a given time; thus, not all communication (and participation )
efforts are suitable to all occasions. How actors communicate with each other,
however, is of broader and more fundamental importance to the whole governance process. Besides formal communication structures between one institution
and another, informal communication channels between stakeholders are of
equal importance. The changing role of stakeholders’ involvement in Baltic Sea
fi sheries governance is therefore discussed under this heading.
• Improvement opportunities for dealing with fi shing : Which measures, structures
and changes in the management and/or advice system are of importance to the
interviewee from his/her specifi c angle? What recommendations could be developed from the views articulated? From the specifi c point of view of the respective interviewee, certain insights might be found that cannot be seen from an
outsider’s perspective. The research process is, therefore, open to ascertaining
the interviewees’ thoughts and experiences with regard to improving
management.
The six aspects that we focus on are partly overlapping and are dealt with in this
paper in the following manner. First we describe the governance structures of EU
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance